Talk:Rose Venkatesan

Name
This article was brought to my attention by another editor, prior to it being locked out from editing. The lock on this article will expire shortly, so I thought I'd add my 2 cents regarding this use of her birth name or "dead name" within this article. The MOS:IDENTITY guideline used to more clearly prohibit the use of such names within articles on transgendered people. I'm not sure why the language of the guideline was softened, but even as it is currently written, I think that is a reasonable application of the guideline to avoid using the dead name. It appears to me to be within the spirit of the guideline to do so. Moreover, it is my opinion that the presumption in favor of privacy policy should apply here. To whit, "Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." Even though that is contextually referring to crime victims, it's a good standard to use in this case. Moreover, "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context." [Emphasis mine] I used to fall on the other side of this issue, so I recognize that there are other opinions to consider. However, I encourage you to consider these points when establishing consensus. -- GentlemanGhost  (converse)  07:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * , I will vigorously defend the rights of any transgendered person who wishes to exclude their originally given name from public discussion. In this particular case, this person began their interview with the Times of India by saying, "I was born and raised as a boy named XXXX XXXX." If the person begins their own account of their life story in this fashion, then who are we as Wikipedia editors to decide that their own freely chosen statements about their originally given name should be excluded? That is, unless there is any evidence that the statement was not freely made. Your thoughts, please? Cullen328   Let's discuss it  07:42, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * To that, I say, "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources." To my mind, one source hardly counts as widely published. I would still choose to err on the side of caution. -- GentlemanGhost [[User talk:GentlemanGhost| (converse)

]] 07:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's 5 more. New York Times, The Globe and Mail , Sunday Observer (Sri Lanka) , Cromos Revista (Spanish-language magazine) , IBN Live  Choor monster (talk) 13:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This increase in reliable sources makes for a more compelling argument. And the Times of India article seems to contradict my thought that the dead name is something which was intentionally concealed in this case. There probably is, within the rules of Wikipedia as currently written, an argument to be made for the permissibility of the inclusion of the dead name. My next question is, does it significantly add to our knowledge of the person to include it? What do we gain from knowing the so-called "real" name that we don't ascertain from the fact that she is a transgendered person?
 * It's a tumultuous political issue, to be sure. There was just a discussion at the Village Pump about the wording of the gender portion of MOS:IDENTITY as it pertains to "event" articles (as opposed to biography articles). Personally, I am inclined not to include the dead name, even though it might be acceptable, to help prevent establishing precedence that might be construed as being acceptable for all articles about transgendered people. I'd much rather leave it out from articles as a default and only include it when there is a pressing need to do so, e.g., Caitlyn Jenner and Chelsea Manning. -- GentlemanGhost   (converse)  22:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * For more on this topic and why the birth name should be deprecated, see this essay. -- GentlemanGhost  (converse)  04:37, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I haven't read the sources well enough, but a quick question that can mean a lot: was Venkatesan primarily notable under her deadname at any point? If she has done notable things under her deadname, then that's a fine reason to include it in the infobox and lead as an alternative name one might know her as. However, seeing as quite a few well-known sources have published her deadname, I don't see too much issue in including it in the personal life section. It's not like the information isn't easily and reliably available anyway. As always, we report what our sources report. ~ Mable ( chat ) 11:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There already is a source where the subject revealed her original name, so what stops us from using it? Kailash29792 (talk) 14:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that inclusion of her deadname doesn't violate WP:BLPPRIVACY because of the Times of India interview and those other sources. However, I think placing it in bold in the first line of the article gives it undue weight. A better place for it would be at the beginning of the "Personal life" section. -- Irn (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Irn. The name is self-disclosed as part of history and can be presented simply as a birth name in a background section. But not at the top of the page at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE95:57B0:7DAB:F42C:5D99:BA0F (talk) 05:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That seems reasonable. Agreed that putting it in the lead does give it undue weight. -- GentlemanGhost  (converse)  20:40, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm opposed to this. I've personally been in the position of having a court order me to disclose my birth name. I refused, and nearly ended up in jail. Does that trump my privacy rights? How about if it happened under torture (as has happened)? Or what if someone divulges it to the police to avoid being beaten (happens all the time)? Lets be honest - what's going on here is that some people just like to bait trans people, and this is a handy way to do it. The question is, do we empower them? Anniepoo (talk) 18:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Many of the news websites that have posted Venkatesan's deadname are known for respecting the wishes of the person in question when it comes to privacy concerns. I would have difficulty believing a publication like The New York Times just casually throwing in a deadname if the subject objects to it. Just because there are horrible people in the world, doesn't mean everyone is a horrible person. The Globe and Mail isn't a trans baiting website. ~ Mable ( chat ) 18:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Anniepoo. I'm sorry for what you've gone through. I just wanted to let you know that there are complaint mechanisms at Wikipedia which allow a person to report when their person information is being revealed inappropriately. In thise case, the relevant page is Requests for oversight. Given the circumstances here, which are that Rose has chosen in the past to talk publically about the deadname as reported in a reliable newspaper, I think it likely that the only way the excision of it would stand up to consensus would be for Rose to file a case with RFO directly. So that is an avenue she can persue if she so chooses. And, of course, the consensus (as I see it) regarding article could change. I hope it does. As far as the bad faith behavior and trans-baiting, there are mechanisms for reporting that as well (Wikipedia:Dealing with disruptive editors). -- GentlemanGhost  (converse)  05:14, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 23 November 2015
It says she is "transgendered" when the proper term is just transgender

Ejmidzin (talk) 00:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I support your claim. The source also says her original name is XXXX, but some devoted fan of hers objects to referencing her backstory. In fact, the article is locked such that only admins can edit it. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I oppose your claim. It's not all of her story, and hence is an adjective Anniepoo (talk) 05:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Language is transgendered, people are not. It's poor English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE95:57B0:7DAB:F42C:5D99:BA0F (talk) 05:32, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request January 2016
Please add some form of pp and pp-move or a related template to the top of the page. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  21:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)